If you would like to register, please email 2 preferred usernames to oceanfisher@gmail.com. You will be registered and sent instructions.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Money or knowledge?

Hey guys

I want to start kind of a fundamental debate.What do you think we need the most for finding a cure nower days. Is the knowledge allready there for a cure and the money too less to finance it? Or are the funds enough to get along with this process nowerdays but the knowledge is far away from a breakthrough?

I think very few scientists/doctors out there actually believe a major breakthrough is on the horizon (within 5 years). SCIs are still an infinite problem (no one really knows how soon it will be until a legitmate advancement is made). A breakthrough that makes this more of a finite problem (solvable within 5 years) will bring the money and the desire to advance the knowledge.

Throwing money blindly at this will not necessarily produce good science that leads to a breakthrough. We need a lot of smart money (that demands results) invested in this research.

Money buys people's time and the more time researchers spend looking for the answer, the quicker one will be found.

Personally, I like to see research grants given to universities for this type of research. Students work cheap, i.e. they even pay (tuition) to work on problems. Also, they have fewer preconceived biases. Finally, the work they do in college research often shapes their lifelong careers.

Of course, a lot of people just want to publish a paper. They aren't too concerned with actually achieving the end result. These people are valuable, but we need people like Dr. Young who wants a solution now, not someday.

Regardless, the more money. the more research, the more results, the quicker a cure will come.

Personally, I think the problem is "profit'. Not just profit for the drug companies and hospitals, but profit (i.e., salary, benefits, stature) for the individual researcher.

"Global Warming" is a good example (maybe a little off the subject, but bear with me). These days, the "experts" who decide what research gets funded and what scientific papers get published subscribe to the theory that the earth's temperature is rising and its a result of human activity. Any researcher who doesn't start with that premise has an almost impossible task of getting funding.

The same thing is happening in SCI and other neuro-musclar research. There are preconceived ideas as to where the research should be headed. any researcher who isn't on those band wagons doesn't get funded. Add to that the drug companies are not looking for cures as much as they're looking for the next big money maker, and the think box gets very small.

Personally, I like to see research grants given to universities for this type of research. Students work cheap, i.e. they even pay (tuition) to work on problems. Also, they have fewer preconceived biases. Finally, the work they do in college research often shapes their lifelong careers.

Personally, I think the problem is "profit'. Not just profit for the drug companies and hospitals, but profit (i.e., salary, benefits, stature) for the individual researcher.

"Global Warming" is a good example (maybe a little off the subject, but bear with me). These days, the "experts" who decide what research gets funded and what scientific papers get published subscribe to the theory that the earth's temperature is rising and its a result of human activity. Any researcher who doesn't start with that premise has an almost impossible task of getting funding.

The same thing is happening in SCI and other neuro-musclar research. There are preconceived ideas as to where the research should be headed. any researcher who isn't on those band wagons doesn't get funded. Add to that the drug companies are not looking for cures as much as they're looking for the next big money maker, and the think box gets very small.

Profit is of course a factor but do you dont think that they are getting way too unsatisfied when they have such good pre clinical results and dont get it to work in humans? Do you really think they set the personal profit on top??

Most of the basic research in the field is conducted in academic institutions already. Most of the grunt work done in these labs is done by students on very modest salaries.

If the grant awarding bodies change their priorities to chronic spinal cord injury, you will see more research into regenerating the chronic spinal cord coming out of academia.

It's the translation that is the challenge. Chronic animals. GMP/GTP materials. Pre-clinical studies. Regulatory dialogue prior to an application. That is the most expensive part of the chain prior to clinical trials.

Don't you guys think that recent study done on humans with success of recovering bladder &b owel enough of a breakthrough ? Isn't recovering motor function and sensation enough of a breakthrough ? What more do we need ? Total recovery ? Wouldn't that be considered a cure ? Personally I think there's a multum of therapies that if combined with correct cell therapy would result in great effects. we need more trials to eliminate cell types that don't produce good results on humans. IMO of course funding comes along with this because without money nothing will be accomplished. It would be awesome if our community fund asked its members what we'd like to spend its money on.